COURT NEWS Vol. I Issue No. 2

Transcription

1 OTHER SUPREME COURT PUBLICATIONS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PRACTICE & PROCEDURE A HANDBOOK OF INFORMATION FOREWORD BY HON BLE SHRI Y.K. SABHARWAL CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 along with REGULATIONS REGARDING ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD EXAMINATION RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1975 COURT NEWS Vol. I Issue No. 2 April-June Price Rs. 20/- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2006 Price Rs. 40/- PUBLISHED BY : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Both publications available at : Reception Counter and Filing Counters, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Also available by post on payment of postal charges Also available on our website : Printed at : I G Printers Pvt. Ltd. Tel: , EDITORIAL BOARD Hon ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Judge, Supreme Court of India Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Judge, Supreme Court of India COMPILED BY V. K. Jain, Registrar General, Supreme Court of India Bibhuti Bhushan Bose, Assistant Editor, Supreme Court Reports A quarterly newsletter published by Supreme Court of India, New Delhi Also available on our website :

2 CONTENTS From the desk of Chief Justice of India 1 Appointments and Retirements of Supreme Court Judges 2 Appointments of High Court Judges 3-4 Transfers of High Court Judges 5 Vacancies in Courts 6-7 Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases 8-10 Some Recent Supreme Court Judgments of Public Importance Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society Major Initiatives 20 Major Events of the Quarter Visits and Conferences 24 LIST OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES (As on 24th July, 2006) Name of the Hon ble Judge Date of Date of Appointment Retirement 01. Hon ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India (CJI) As CJI: On Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G.Balakrishnan Hon ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal Hon ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan Hon ble Mr.Justice Arijit Pasayat Hon ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh Hon ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema Hon ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha Hon ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan Hon ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur Hon ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Hon ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur Hon ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker Hon ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee Hon ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan Hon ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Hon ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir Hon ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari Hon ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Hon ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Hon ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju

3 Y.K. Sabharwal Chief Justice of India 5, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi

4 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE APPOINTMENTS AND RETIREMENTS OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES APPOINTMENTS Name of the Hon ble Judge Date of Appointment Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Mr. Justice Markandey Katju RETIREMENTS Name of the Hon ble Judge Date of Retirement Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal

5 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE APPOINTMENTS OF HIGH COURT JUDGES S.No. Name of the High Court Name of the Hon ble Judge Date of Appointment 1. Allahabad Ran Vijai Singh Pankaj Mithal Andhra Pradesh G.V. Seethapathy Calcutta D.K. Gupta Nadira Patherya Ashim Kumar Roy Biswanath Somadder Dipankar Datta Sanjib Banerjee P S Banerjee Tapan Mukherjee Arunabha Basu Kalidas Mukherjee Manik Mohan Sarkar Rudrendra Nath Banerjee Tapas Kumar Giri Kishore Kumar Prasad Partha Sakha Datta Prasenjit Mandal Delhi P.K. Bhasin Kailash Gambhir G.S. Sistani S. Murlidhar Hima Kohli Vipin Sanghi Aruna Suresh

6 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE Madhya Pradesh Suresh Chandra Sinho Patna Anwar Ahmad Subash Chandra Jha Madhavendra Saran Shyam Kishore Sharma Punjab & Haryana R.S. Madan Arvind Kumar Serv Daman Anand H.S. Bhalla Amar Nath Jindal M.M.S. Bedi Rajasthan Mohammed Rafiq

7 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE TRANSFERS OF HIGH COURT JUDGES S. From To Name of the Date of No. Hon ble Judge Transfer 1. Calcutta High Court Orissa High Court A.K. Ganguly Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand High Court High Court Permod Kohli

8 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE VACANCIES IN COURTS A) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (As on 24 th July, 2006) Sanctioned Strength Working strength Vacancies B) HIGH COURTS ( As on 24 th July, 2006) S.No. Name of Sanctioned Working Vacancies the High Court strength strength 1. Allahabad Andhra Pradesh Bombay Calcutta Chhattisgarh Delhi Gauhati Gujarat Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Madras Orissa Patna Punjab & Haryana Rajasthan Sikkim Uttaranchal TOTAL

9 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE C) DISTRICT & SUBORDINATE COURTS (As on 30 th April, 2006) S. Name of State/ Sanctioned Working No. Union Territory Strength Strength Vacancies 1. Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra West Bengal Chhatisgarh Delhi Gujarat a Assam b Meghalaya c Tripura d Manipur e Nagaland f Mizoram 8.g Arunachal Pradesh Judiciary is not yet separated from Executive in these States 9. Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala a Tamil Nadu b Pondicherry Madhya Pradesh Orissa Bihar a Punjab b Haryana c Chandigarh Rajasthan Sikkim Uttaranchal Total

10 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES A) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM TO ) Month Institution Total Disposal Total Pendency Total & year Admission Regular Admission Regular Admission Regular PENDENCY as on 31 st March, ,995 16,206 35,201 APRIL, , ,649 4, ,044 19,472 16,334 35,806 MAY, , ,271 4, ,036 19,686 16,355 36,041 JUNE, , , ,911 16,412 37,323

11 B) HIGH COURTS (FROM TO ) COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES Total pendency S. Name of Opening Institution Disposal Pendency Opening Institution Disposal Pendency of civil and No. High Court balance from from as on balance from from as on criminal as on to to as on to to cases as on Allahabad Andhra Pradesh 3 Bombay Calcutta Chhatisgarh Delhi Gujarat Guwahati Himachal Pradesh 10 Jammu & Kashmir 11 Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madras Madhya Pradesh 16 Orissa Patna Punjab & Haryana 19 Rajasthan Sikkim Uttaranchal Total

12 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE c) DISTRICT AND SUBORDINATE COURTS [other than in the State of Bihar # ] (FROM TO ) CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES Total pendency S. Name of Opening Institution Disposal Pendency Opening Institution Disposal Pendency of civil and No. State/Union balance from from as on balance from from as on criminal Territory as on to to as on to to cases as on Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh 3 Maharashtra West Bengal Chhatisgarh Delhi Gujarat (a) Assam (b) Nagaland (c) Meghalya (d) Manipur (e) Tripura (f) Mizoram (g) Arunachal Pradesh 9 Himachal Pradesh 10 Jammu & Kashmir 11 Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala (a) Tamil Nadu (b) Pondicherry Madhya Pradesh Orissa (a) Punjab (b) Haryana (c) Chandigarh Rajasthan Sikkim Uttaranchal Total # In Bihar, the information/ figure is compiled on a half-yearly basis.

13 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE SOME RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE v On 3 rd April, 2006, a two Judges Bench in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.1867 of 2006] stressed on the necessity of evolving a mechanism to speedily determine and fill vacancies of Judges at all levels. Accordingly the Bench directed all the State Governments, Union Territories and/or High Courts to provide for a time schedule so that every year vacancies that may occur are timely filled. Non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for long time deprives the people of the services of the Judicial Officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the Courts, said the Bench. v On 5 th April, 2006, a two Judges Bench in Union of India & Anr. vs Satya Prakash & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos of 2003] considered the question as to whether Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates selected for civil services posts on merit and placed in the list of open category candidates could still for the purpose of placement (preference) be considered to be OBC candidates thereby exhausting the quota reserved for relaxed OBC candidates from allocation of service. Interpreting the Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules, 1996, the Bench held that by opting for a preference, the quota reserved for OBC candidate does not exhaust. It held that while a reserved category candidate recommended by the Union Public Service Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard will have the option of preference from the reserved category recommended by the Commission by resorting to relaxed standard, but while computing the quota/percentage of reservation he/she will be deemed to have been allotted seat as an open category candidate (i.e. on merit) and not as a reserved category candidate recommended by the Commission by resorting to relaxed standard. v On 5 th April, 2006, a two Judges Bench in Central Government of India & Ors vs Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni [Civil Appeal No.4819 of 2000] held that an Indira Vikas Patra (IVP) is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of the holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. The Bench said that Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 (framed under the Government Saving Certificates Act, 1959) made it clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any post office. v On 10 th April, 2006, a three Judges Bench in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India & Ors. [ IA Nos. 989, 1221 & 1331 in IA Nos in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995] examined

14 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE the bonafides of a person who in purported public interest filed application before this Court alleging that the State of Chhattisgarh had unlawfully leased forest land for setting up of a coal washery plant. On perusal of the record, the Bench held that the applicant had been set up by others and was nothing but a name lender and strongly deprecated the filing of an entirely misconceived and malafide application in the garb of public interest litigation by him. The Bench said that the applicant has abused the process of law and deserves to be sternly dealt with and that enormous judicial time has been wasted which could have been used for deciding other cases. It further said that it also resulted in the Central Empowered Committee(CEC) [which had been directed by the Court to enquire into the matter], and others incurring huge expenses and their wastage of time as well and accordingly asked the applicant to pay CEC costs quantified at Rupees One Lakh. Enumerating the basic issues required to be satisfied in every public interest litigation, the Bench said, howsoever genuine a cause brought before a Court by a public interest litigant may be, the Court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt. In a given exceptional case, where bonafides of a public interest litigant are in doubt, the Court may still examine the issue having regard to the serious nature of the public cause and likely public injury, even if the bona fides of the litigant was in doubt, by appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, but under no circumstances with the assistance of a doubtful public interest litigant. The Bench said that no trust can be placed by Court on a mala fide applicant in public interest litigation. v On 13 th April, 2006, a three Judges Bench in R.D. Upadhyay vs State of A.P. & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 559 of 1994] held that children of women prisoners who are living in jail require additional protection. In many respects they suffer the consequences of neglect, the Bench said and accordingly issued directions so as to ensure that the minimum standards are met by all States and Union Territories vis-à-vis the children of women prisoners living in prison. Some of the important guidelines/directions issued are as follows:- (i) A child shall not be treated as an undertrial / convict while in jail with his/her mother. Such a child is entitled to food, shelter, medical care, clothing, education and recreational facilities as a matter of right. (ii) Before sending a woman who is pregnant to a jail, the concerned authorities must ensure that jail in question has the basic minimum facilities for child delivery as well as for providing pre-natal and post-natal care for both, the mother and the child. As far as possible and provided the woman prisoner has a suitable option, arrangements for temporary release/parole (or suspended sentence in case of minor and casual offender) should be made to enable an expectant prisoner to have her delivery outside the prison. Only exceptional cases constituting high security risk or cases of equivalent grave descriptions can be denied this facility.

15 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE (iii) Births in prison, when they occur, shall be registered in the local birth registration office. But the fact that the child has been born in the prison shall not be recorded in the certificate of birth that is issued. Only the address of the locality shall be mentioned. (iv) Female prisoners shall be allowed to keep their children with them in jail till they attain the age of six years. Upon reaching the age of six years, the child shall be handed over to a suitable surrogate as per the wishes of the female prisoner or shall be sent to a suitable institution run by the Social Welfare Department. As far as possible, the child shall not be transferred to an institution outside the town or city where the prison is located in order to minimize undue hardships on both mother and child due to physical distance. Children kept under the protective custody in a home of the Department of Social Welfare shall be allowed to meet the mother at least once a week. For securing compliance with its directions, the Bench directed that the Jail Manual and/or other relevant Rules, Regulations, instructions etc. be suitably amended within three months. However it also said that if in some jails, better facilities are being provided, same shall continue. v On 13 th April, 2006, a Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr vs State of Haryana & Ors (Civil Appeal No.3453 of 2002) examined the concept of compensatory tax. Earlier in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406, a working test had been enunciated for deciding whether a tax is compensatory or not. The working test is to enquire whether the trade is having the use of certain facilities for the better conduct of its business and paying not patently much more than what is required for providing the facilities. However, subsequently in M/s Bhagatram Rajeevkumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P and others, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 673, the Court went on to widen the concept of compensatory tax by holding that if there is substantial or even some link between the tax and the facilities extended to dealers directly or indirectly the levy cannot be impugned as invalid. Since by reason of the subsequent decision, the concept of compensatory tax got blurred, the matter was referred to this Constitution Bench to decide with certitude the parameters of the judicially evolved concept of compensatory tax vis-à-vis Article 301 of the Constitution. This Bench held that the working test as propounded in Automobile Transport s case will continue to apply and that the test of some connection (some link) as propounded in Bhagatram s case which is not only contrary to the working test but also obliterates the very basis of compensatory tax is not good law. v On 20 th April, 2006, a three Judges Bench in State of Karnataka & Anr. vs All India Manufacturers Organization & Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2005] rejected appeals filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of Karnataka High Court directing it to continue implementation of the Banglore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project. The said project had the twin objectives of

16 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE providing an express highway linking Bangalore with Mysore, and of developing infrastructure along the corridor and in and around Bangalore city. Taking an overall view of the matter, the Bench held that there could hardly be a dispute that the Banglore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project is a mega project which is in the larger public interest of the State of Karnataka and merely because there was a change in the Government, there was no necessity for reviewing all decisions taken by the previous Government, which is what appears to have happened. The Bench found it strange that the State Government woke up after seven long years, and even more strangely after a change in the State s political leadership, to the fact that there was fraud/misrepresentation by M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. [the company serving as a corporate vehicle for development and implementation of the project] or anyone else. It further held that the constitution and functioning of the Expert Committee set up to go into the allegations of excess land acquired by the Government for implementation of the Project also illustrated the mala fides with which the State Government has approached the Project. Considering the frivolous arguments and the mala fides with which the State of Karnataka and its instrumentalities conducted litigation before the High Court and this Court, the Bench directed it to pay M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. costs quantified at Rupees Five Lakhs. The Bench further directed the two MLAs and a social worker, who filed PILs challenging the project before High Court and then filed appeals before this Court, to pay, in addition to the costs already imposed on them by the High Court, costs quantified at Rupees Fifty Thousand. v On 28 th April, 2006, a Constitution Bench in M/s. Sunrise Associates vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.4552 of 1998] held that the sale of a lottery ticket does not involve a sale of goods and at the highest amounts to transfer of an actionable claim. The Bench said a lottery ticket has no value in itself. It is a mere piece of paper. Its value lies in the fact that it represents a chance or a right to a conditional benefit of winning a prize of a greater value than the consideration paid for the transfer of that chance. It is nothing more than a token or evidence of this right. It further said that on purchasing a lottery ticket, the purchaser would have a claim to a conditional interest in the prize money which is not in the purchaser s possession. The right would fall squarely within the definition of an actionable claim and would therefore be excluded from the definition of goods under the Sale of Goods Act and the Sales Tax statutes. v On 8 th May, 2006, a three Judges Bench in Jaya Bachchan vs Union of India & Ors. [Writ petition (Civil) No.199 of 2006] rejected the writ petition filed by Ms.Jaya Bachchan against her disqualification from membership of Rajya Sabha for holding an office of profit. Ms. Jaya Bachchan had been disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution for holding the office of Chairperson of the U.P. Film Development Council on ground that the same was an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

17 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE The Bench held that an office of profit is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and holding an office under the Central or State Government, to which some pay, salary, emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance is attached, is holding an office of profit. In its view for deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain. Noticing that the office held by Ms. Bachchan carried with it a monthly honorarium of Rs.5000/-, entertainment expenditure of Rs.10,000/-, staff car with driver, telephones at office and residence, free accommodation and medical treatment facilities to self and family members, apart from other allowances etc, the Bench held that these are pecuniary gains, cannot be denied. It held that the fact that Ms. Bachchan is affluent or was not interested in the benefits/facilities given by the State Government or did not, in fact, receive such benefits till date are not relevant to the issue. v On 10 th May, 2006, a three Judges Bench in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Through the Amicus Curiae vs Ashok Khot and Anr. [Contempt Petition (Civil) No.83 of 2005] sentenced the Minister-incharge as also the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Maharashtra at the relevant point of time for contempt. The two contemnors were each sentenced to a months simple imprisonment for permitting resumption of operations by six saw mills/ veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra in direct contravention of the earlier orders of this Court. The Bench held that both the contemnors deliberately flouted the orders of this Court in a brazen manner. Rejecting the explanations of the contemnors it held that mens rea was writ large. The Bench said this is a case where not only right from the beginning attempt has been made to overreach the orders of this Court but also to draw red-herrings. Still worse is the accepted position of inserting a note in the official file with oblique motives.that makes the situation worse. In this case the contemnors deserve severe punishment. This will set an example for those who have propensity of dis-regarding the court s orders because of their money power, social status or posts held. v On 12 th May, 2006, a two Judges Bench in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs Sri C. Kenchappa & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.7405 of 2000] asked the Appellant-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to insist on conditions emanating from the priniciple of sustainable development. The Bench explained that sustainable development means a development which can be sustained by nature with or without mitigation. In other words, it is to maintain delicate balance between industrialization and ecology. It said that while development of industry is essential for the growth of economy, at the same time, the environment and the ecosystem are required to be protected and that in order to protect sustainable development, it is necessary to implement and enforce some of its main components and ingredients such as - Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays and Public Trust Doctrine.

18 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE v On 23 rd May, 2006, a two Judges Bench in The Chairman, SEBI vs Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. [Civil Appeal No of 2003] considered the question as to whether once a Mutual Fund violates the terms of Certificate of Registration (which are statutory in nature, as prescribed by Section 15(D)(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992) and the statutory Regulations i.e. SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, the imposition of penalty becomes a sine qua non of the violation. The Bench held that penalty is attracted as soon as contravention of the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulation is established and that intention of the parties committing such violation i.e. mens rea was wholly irrelevant. The Bench held that the impugned judgment of the Securities Appellate Tribunal had set the stage for various market players to violate statutory regulations with impunity and subsequently plead ignorance of law or lack of mens rea to escape the imposition of penalty. It held that imputing mens rea into the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Act is against the plain language of the statute and frustrates entire purpose and object of introducing Chapter VIA to give teeth to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to secure strict compliance of the Act and the Regulations.

19 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE SUPREME COURT MIDDLE INCOME GROUP LEGAL AID SOCIETY The Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society has been constituted under the Societies Registration Act to provide partial legal service to the middle class section of the Society whose annual income does not exceed Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The function of this Society is confined to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. The Society has been recognized vide Regulation 3(4) of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Regulations, 1996, framed pursuant to Section 29 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, It has formulated a totally self-funded Scheme whereby the applicant pays the fees of the Advocates and the Senior Advocates but at a highly reduced fee Structure unlike the normal fees. The Society is headed by a sitting Hon ble Judge of the Supreme Court of India as its President and its governing body consists of 11 members, including the President and the Attorney General as the ex-officio vice-president. The Society maintains a panel of advocates, including Advocates-on-Record and Senior Advocates, who are willing to take up cases assigned by the Society. Every person who is desirous of availing the services of an advocate has to approach the Secretary of the Society by filling up an application in the prescribed form available in the office alongwith other relevant documents. The office of the Society is presently functioning at 109, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court Compound(Fax/Phone: ) and establishment services to it are being provided by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The website of the Society is linked with the Supreme Court website, namely, and contains all the information about its functioning. Salient Features of the Scheme are as follows: 1. The Scheme is applicable for cases intended to be filed in Supreme Court. The litigant can approach the Society in two situations viz. to file or defend a case in the Supreme Court. 2. The applicant may indicate any 3 names both in relation to the Advocate-on-Record or the arguing counsel or the Senior Counsel as the case may be in the order of preference from out of the panel maintained by Society. 3. Any intending litigant desirous of availing the benefit of the Scheme is required to fill up the form prescribed and accept all the terms and conditions contained therein. The proforma also contains a schedule of fee and expenses as applicable from time to time. A sum of Rs.500/- is payable to the Society as service charges. 4. If the Advocate who is appointed under the Scheme is found negligent in the conduct of the case entrusted to him, then he is required to return the brief together with the fee which may have been received by him from the applicant under the Scheme.

20 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE Schedule of Fee for Advocate on Record /Advocates is as follows:- (A) Appearance on behalf of the Petitioners. Item of work Drafting SLP / Writ Petition / Transfer Petition including list of dates and miscellaneous application ( before notice stage ) Drafting rejoinder affidavit, and / or contesting matter after notice and till disposal at the notice stage Hearing of the matter at final disposal stage inclusive of adjournment, if any, and / or at appeal stage- Fee payable Rs.2200/- Rs.1100/- Rs.1650/- per day upto a maximum of Rs.3300/- (B) Appearance on behalf of the Respondents Item of work Drafting counter affidavit / statement of objections and all other necessary applications upto admission stage Hearing of matter at final disposal stage including adjournment, if any, and / or at appeal stage. (C) Fee for Senior Advocates. Item of work Settlement of Pleadings including conference etc. Appearance at the admission stage / after notice Appearance at final disposal / appeal stage Fee payable Fee payable Rs.2200/-. Rs.1650/- per day upto a maximum of Rs.3300/- Rs.1000/- Rs.1650/- per appearance upto a maximum of Rs.3300/-. Rs.2500/- per appearance upto a maximum of Rs.5000/-

21 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE Schedule of rates for Out-of-Pocket expenses is as follows:- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Computer Typing charges are Rs per page Photostat charges are payable for each extra Rs per page Steno charges are Rs per page Paper Book Binding charges are Rs each Court fee is payable on the petition as per the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as amended upto date.major INITIATIVES

22 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE MAJOR INITIATIVES 1. Registrar s Courts: Vide amendments carried out in Order VI, Rules 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 published in Gazette Notification (Extraordinary) No. 76 Part-II-Section 3 Sub section (i) dated 1 st March, 2006, powers of this Court in relation to certain matters were conferred upon the Registrar. Consequently, the first Court of the Registrar started functioning w.e.f 3 rd April, matters are being listed everyday before the Registrar. 2. Attendance recording system: For the purpose of monitoring attendance of the Officers and staff in the Supreme Court, Attendance Recording System has been installed at a number of entry points / locations in the Supreme Court Building. Officers/officials have to press the employee code on the machine and thereafter give their thumb or finger print impression on the finger scanner and the machine automatically records the attendance with timings.

23 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE MAJOR EVENTS OF THE QUARTER I. Inauguration of exhibition on Alipore Bomb Conspiracy Case: A pre-independence Trial at the Supreme Court Museum. An exhibition on Alipore Bomb Conspiracy Case: A pre-independence Trial was inaugurated in the Supreme Court Museum on 13 th May, 2006 by Hon ble Shri Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India in the august presence of Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court, Union Minister of Law & Justice, Shri H.R. Bhardwaj and other dignitaries. A Booklet and a Brochure were released by His Lordship on the said occasion. The exhibition is open all days from A.M. to 6.00 P.M. The exhibition traces the history of the incident of Muzaffarpur Bomb outrage in which Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki threw a bomb on 30 th April, 1908 on a carriage mistaking it for the carriage of Kingsford, the infamous Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta who had awarded unconscionable sentences to Indians. The wife and daughter of Pringle Kennedy, a Barrister at the Muzaffarpur Bar were killed in the incident. Khudiram Bose was arrested and Prafulla Chaki committed suicide. Khudiram Bose was tried and sentenced to death on 11 th August, The exhibition portrays exhibits/objects in different sections relating to (i) historical background of the event; (ii) British Imperialism in India; (iii) the event and its impact on the administration; (iv) trial in the Court of Alipore and (v) the aftermath of the trial and its impact on independence movement. II. Activities of NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) 1. Programme Planning Workshop Under The Project Nyaya Sankalp: A new project titled Nyaya Sankalp was launched in association with UNDP with the object of sensitization and capacity building of Judiciary Members for prevention of trafficking and HIV/AIDS on 16 th -17 th April 2006 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. The programme, under the project, is being implemented in 11 States of the country. 2. Programme On Legal Rights Of Labouring Communities: National Legal Aid Week for Protection of Labour Rights was observed from 25 th April 2006 to 1 st May A Symbolic Cycle Rally of labourers was flagged off by Hon ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, the Chief Justice of India from His Lordship s residence in the morning on 1 st May A Workers Colloquium on Social Justice and Equality was organised by the Authority at Siri Fort Auditorium, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. Hon ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, the Chief Justice of India along with Dr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Hon ble Union Minister for Law & Justice, Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Chairman, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and Hon ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain, Acting Chief Justice, Delhi High Court addressed the gathering. 3. All India Meet Of High Court Legal Services Committees: The First All India Meet of High Court Legal Services Committees was organised to develop Plan and Policy Initiative and a Charter of Action Plan for the improvement of the Quality of Delivery of Legal Aid Services to the poor and disadvantaged at the High Court Level on 29 th April 2006 at Gulmohar Hall, Habitat World, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Hon ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Executive Chairperson, Nalsa inaugurated the Meet in the

24 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE august presence of Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Chairman, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and Hon ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Judge, Supreme of India. The Meet was also attended by the Chairpersons and Secretaries of the High Court Legal Services Committees. 4. Social Justice Week For Fisherfolks In Distress: Social Justice Week for Fisherfolks in distress in the coastal States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu was observed from 25 th 30 th May Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Chairman, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee launched two Mobile Legal Literacy Campaigns on Boat on 26 th May 2006, one at Fishermen Village, Anjuthengu, Varkala and another at Janardhan Temple Chowk, Varkala. He also inaugurated a conference of Fisherfolks of Tamil Nadu and Kerala on 27 th May 2006 at Nagerkoil, Kanyakumari (Tamil Nadu). About 1,300 fisherfolks were present in the Conference. 5. Workshop of Bar Associations: A workshop of the Bar Associations of the 11 States under the UNDP-TAHA Project was organised at Varkala (Kerala) on 26 th -27 th May 2006 to sensitize the Bar Members regarding the Legal and Human Rights Issues related to the survivors of Trafficking and HIV/AIDS. The workshop was inaugurated by Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G.Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court of India. 6. Workshop of Judicial Academies: A workshop of the State Judicial Academies of the 11 States under the UNDP-TAHA project was organized on 28 th -29 th May 2006 at Cochin, Kerala to consider the incorporation of HIV and Trafficking in Women and Girls in the curriculum of Judicial Academies. Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court of India inaugurated the workshop. Directors of the Judicial Academies of the project States participated therein. III. Activities of NJA (National Judicial Academy) 1. Workshop on Mediation, Conciliation, Arbitration and Negotiated Settlement of Disputes: This workshop which aimed to analyze the new provisions in the context of ground realities, identify strategies to promote the increased use of ADR in the system and help acquire essential skills in the use of ADR techniques in different types of disputes was held from 7-12 April, District & Sessions Judges participated in the workshop. 2. Judicial Symposium on Gender Discrimination, Population Policy and Rights of Women: This Judicial Symposium jointly organized by the Population Foundation of India, New Delhi and the National Judicial Academy which explored the dismal social reality of Indian women with reference to demographic factors, reproductive rights and criminal justice administration was held from April, The Hon ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court, addressed the participants, which included Hon ble High Court Justices in charge of judicial training in their respective States and as well as Directors and Additional Directors of the various State Judicial Academies. The highlights of the discussion were the critical evaluation of the declining sex ratio, the health rights of women with particular emphasis on reproductive rights. The application of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the PNDT Act, 1994 in relation to gender justice were also discussed at length. 3. Advanced Course on Economic Crimes: With Globalisation and unprecedented developments in science and technology, the pattern of crime in the economic sector has assumed menacing

25 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE proportions. This course which specially focussed on the distinctive features and special procedure within the existing procedural laws which can be applied for adjudication of the speedy and effective disposal of economic crimes was held from 21-23, April Special Judges of the Economic Offences Courts participated in the course. 4. Refresher Course on Judiciary and Media Relations-Issues and Concerns: The role and responsibility of media in reporting on judicial proceedings, especially those involving women and children; trial by media and its typology; the effective exercise of contempt power; and sting operations and the legal responses formed the core of the discussions in this course which was held from 4-7, May The four-day deliberations culminated in the formation of a comprehensive Code titled Media Reporting of Legal and Judicial Proceedings: A Model Code. 15 District & Sessions Judges, including Registrars of High Courts participated in the course.

26 COURT NEWS, APRIL JUNE VISITS AND CONFERENCES 1. Hon ble Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India, Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, Judges, Supreme Court of India accompanied by Mr. V.K. Jain, Court Administrator-cum-Registrar General, Supreme Court of India attended the IXth Indo-British Legal Forum Meet at Edinburgh, U.K. on 29 th and 30 th June, A number of important issues such as Constitutional Law-Separation of powers; The Judiciary and the Media; The Effect of Human Rights on Environmental Law and Issues arising from Terrorism were extensively discussed at the Meet. 2. Hon ble Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India attended the (i) celebration of the 50 th Anniversary of the Constitutional Court of Italy at Rome from 21 st to 22 nd April, 2006; (ii) 18 th International Conference of International Council for Commercial Arbitration at Montreal, Canada from 31 st May to 3 rd June, 2006 and (iii) 72 nd Biennial Conference of International Law Association at Toronto, Canada from 4 th to 8 th June, Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Judge, Supreme Court of India participated in the delebrations of the Intensive Study Programme for Judicial Educators conducted by Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute at Halifax (Canada) from 7 th to 14 th June, An eleven member South African delegation headed by H.E. Ms. Brigitte Sylvia Mabandla, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, visited Supreme Court of India on 10 th April, 2006 and had a meeting with Hon ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. 5. A five member Tanzanian delegation of the High Court of Tanzania (Commercial Division) headed by Dr. S.J. Bwana, Judge In-charge Commercial Court, visited Supreme Court of India on 12 th June, 2006 and had a meeting with Hon ble Dr. Justice G.C. Bharuka, Chairman and Mr. N.S. Kulkarni, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Manas Patnaik, Member (Technical) of the E-Committee.